Tag Archives: cfm

03.17.26
by

What Would You Do?

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Happy St. Paddy’s Day to my Irish friends (I’m 1/2 Irish) and those that would like to be. May the luck of the Irish embrace you today.

As many of you know, we are always willing to provide to the pension and E&F communities a free analysis to highlight how a Cash Flow Matching (CFM) mandate could secure the promised benefits/grants for your fund and importantly, provide the necessary liquidity to meet future promises. In many cases, we will produce multiple runs covering a variety of periods usually 5-years to 30-years. Often the sponsor of the fund is shocked by the potential cost reduction of those future obligations.

We recently provided a large pension plan with several potential implementations, as they try to improve the fund’s liquidity profile, while also desiring to secure those future promises. Here are three scenarios that we provided to them and I’d welcome your feedback on what you would do.

Scenario #1 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the core fixed income allocation ($3 billion/15% of total assets) to match and fund the NET (after contributions) liability cash flows of benefits and expenses (B&E). In this scenario, we can cover the next 6-years of B&E through 6/30/32, covering $3.44 billion in FV benefits and expenses for $3.0 billion (a cost reduction of $443.3k or 12.88%). The YTM on the portfolio is 4.09 and the duration 3.09 years, with the average quality being A-. The remaining assets can continue to be managed as they currently are, but they now benefit from a 6-year investing horizon in which they are no longer providing any liquidity to meet monthly obligations.

Scenario #2 – Provide a CFM portfolio using the same $3 billion (only needed $2.96 billion) or 15% of the fund’s total assets, but implement the strategy using a vertical slice of the liabilities going out 30-years. In this example, we can cover 22% of the liability cash flows for the next 30-years. The FV of those liabilities are $6.3 billion (as opposed to the $3.44 billion using 100% CFM for 6-years). We can reduce the FV cost by $3.33 billion or 53%. The remaining 85% of the fund’s assets can be managed as they presently are, but they don’t benefit from the longer investing horizon, as they will be called upon to provide liquidity to meet the residual B&E.

Scenario #3 – 100% CFM covering net liabilities through 6/30/59. In this case we showed that we can cover 100% of the NET B&E for $9.9 billion in assets, while providing the plan with a $4.4 billion surplus. The FV of those B&E through 2059 are reduced by about $13 billion or 56%! The surplus assets now have a 33-year investing horizon to just grow and grow! A modest 6.5% annualized return for that period produces a surplus of $34.2 billion that can be used to fund B&E after 2059, enhance benefits, and/or reduce future contributions. An 8% annualized return produces a surplus >$75 billion. Oh, my! Also, in this scenario, the organization ONLY needs an annual 2.56% return on the remaining assets to fully fund ALL projected B&E well beyond 2059, as determined by our Asset Exhaustion Test (AET).

Importantly, these scenarios only work if the sponsoring entity provides the forecasted contributions, which in this case they have consistently done for the past 10+ years.

So, I ask once again, what would you do? Scenario 1 ($3 billion/15% of total assets) provides a 100% coverage for 6-years while reducing cost by 13%. Scenario 2 reduces the cost of FV B&E by 53% or $3.4 billion, but covers only 22% of the liabilities, while Scenario 3 reduces the FV cost by 56%, while securing the net promises through 2059 for a cost of $9.9 billion resulting in a surplus of $4.4 billion.

I guess that there is a fourth scenario which is to do nothing, but why would you want to continue to ride the proverbial performance rollercoaster that only guarantees volatility and not success when you can secure a portion of the liabilities, significantly reduce the cost of those future promises, improve liquidity, and “buy time” for the residual assets to just grow unencumbered?

As the Irish say – “May the most you wish for be the least you get“.

03.16.26
by

Unfortunately, the Joke Was On Us!

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

I started raising alarm bells related to DB pension exposure to alternatives – mainly private equity and private credit several years ago, and have produced roughly a dozen blog posts that touch on this issue. You may recall some of the posts from 2024:

The Joke’s On Us!

Good Ideas are Often Overwhelmed!

Kinda Silly Question

Well, unfortunately it appears that it is time to pay the piper! As mentioned in the posts listed above, we as an industry don’t truly appreciate the idea that there is a natural capacity to EVERY investment. As an industry, we DO overwhelm good ideas and those funds that are late to the party are often left with just the crumbs in the chaffing dish.

I stumbled over a good, but scary, list of recent events within private credit. The list was compiled by Ignacio Ramirez Moreno, Host of The Blunt Dollar Podcast:

Cliffwater saw 14% redemption requests.

Morgan Stanley’s fund got 10.9%.

Blackstone hit a record 7.9%.

All three capped withdrawals below what investors requested.

Glendon Capital flagged concerns about Blue Owl’s valuations.

Pimco called it “a crisis of really bad underwriting.”

JPMorgan’s marking down loans and tightening lending to private credit funds.

Partners Group thinks defaults could double.

Pimco’s predicting a “full-blown default cycle.”

Apollo’s saying the pain could last 12-18 months.

Well, that is some list! In addition, I was always quite skeptical of the credit quality that was assigned to these companies, and I guess that I wasn’t too far off given that 43% of private credit borrowers have negative free cash flow. Furthermore, the U.S./Israel vs. Iran war won’t help either, as inflation expectations have ratcheted higher reducing significantly the prospects for Fed action leading to lower rates. In fact, it would not be surprising to see the Fed have to raise rates. If such an action occurs, the higher interest rates could exacerbate the current challenging environment for private debt borrowers and their income statements.

Let’s see how the pension plan sponsor community and their advisors deal with private credit’s first real crisis. It should be both interesting and likely painful.

03.04.26
by

Here’s Another Example – Why, Oh Why?

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

In October 2022, I wrote the following: “I believe that we have overcomplicated the management of DB pension plans. If the primary objective is to fund the promised benefits in a cost-efficient manner and with prudent risk, why do we continue to waste so much energy buying complicated products and strategies that often come with ridiculously high fees and little alpha?”

I still believe that our industry continues to build complicated asset allocation structures unnecessarily. In a recent P&I article, the following was reported: that a public pension system will adjust their asset allocation to reflect new targets including a 4% allocation to hedge funds and 3% to opportunistic credit, alongside increases in private equity to 13.5% from 8% and private debt to 8% from 6.5% — funded by reductions in domestic equities, international equities, and infrastructure.

This action is occurring after the investment consultant ABC recommended the changes following an asset-liability study, with the goal of enhancing protection against volatility and drawdowns while maintaining sufficient liquidity. Can you get more complicated? Are they really claiming that this structure will maintain sufficient liquidity? Sure, there may be a reduction in “volatility” because these strategies are not marked-to-market, as opposed to the public markets, but claiming that sufficient liquidity will be maintained is a joke!

I’ve been arguing for quite some time that the private markets are overbought. As assets continue to flow into these strategies, liquidity has dried up with little capital flowing back to the investor, which is why the secondary markets have flourished. Too many assets in any strategy deflate future returns, which we have witnessed. Regarding hedge funds, which are not aligned with the primary objective in managing a DB pension plan which is a relative objective (assets versus pension liabilities and NOT the ROA) they continue to be extremely expensive offerings that have produced subpar returns for the better part of the last two decades.

If the objective is to maintain sufficient liquidity look no further than cash flow matching (CFM) which will ensure that the necessary liquidity to meet benefits and expenses is available each month of the assignment as far out as the allocation goes without a need for a cash sweep of growth assets. Furthermore, one doesn’t have to pay hedge fund fees to get that “liquidity”. You can get a CFM strategy for 15 bps or less. While your liquidity needs are being met, the CFM portfolio will also extend the investing horizon for the remainder of the fund’s assets enhancing the probability that those less liquid, highly opaque offerings have time to produce the forecasted returns.

Afraid that you are going to give up “return” by using a CFM strategy? We recently completed an analysis for a large public pension system that believed they were <50% funded. We proved that we could fully fund and SECURE the NET liabilities (after contributions) of benefits and expenses (B&E) through 2059! Yes, a CFM portfolio with a YTM of 5.4% was able to fully fund the net B&E for 33-years. In addition, we were able to produce a surplus in excess of $4 billion, which can now just grow and grow and grow. In fact, investing that surplus in an S&P 500 index fund would grow those assets at a 6.5% annual return (the fund’s target ROA) to $35.3 billion by 2059. If the index produced an 8% nominal return for that period those surplus assets grow to >$75 billion that can be used to reduce future contributions, meet future liabilities, and perhaps enhance benefits.

Oh, wait, it gets even better. By investing in just the CFM strategy and the S&P 500 index fund, this plan can reduce annual investment fees from nearly $50 million per year to <$4 million, a reduction of 93%. Those fee savings add another $1.5 billion to the surplus before any return is generated on those savings. As Ripley would say, “BELIEVE IT OR NOT”!

Again, the management of a DB plan is not rocket science. Fund the annual required contributions, focus on the primary objective to SECURE the promised benefits at low cost and prudent risk, and you have a program that is neither complicated nor expensive to administer. When will we learn?

03.02.26
by

Eliminate the Uncertainty

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

There are many benefits to using Cash Flow Matching (CFM) for your pension plan, endowment or foundation. The obvious benefit is the liquidity that is created to meet ongoing expenditures, whether benefit payments or grants. That liquidity comes at a premium today for many entities that have migrated significant financial resources to alternative investments, which are having a difficult time providing their investors with capital distributions.

The other significant benefit is the certainty that comes from using CFM. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to speak at NCPERS, IFEBP, LATEC, and OPAL in the last few months and in each case, I asked the audience if there was any investment strategy within their fund that brought certainty? Not a single hand was raised. They could have mentioned cash reserves as an example, but that is an expensive long-term strategy because of the low short-term yields available today.

The cloud of uncertainty under which we live is not comfortable! Yes, both pension funds and E&Fs are long-term investors, but the riding of markets up and down often leads to a significant increase in the contributions necessary to maintain their funding. That activity is not helpful to anyone. Who knows what will transpire as our country navigates through several potential geopolitical landmines. Combine that reality with uncertain economic growth, weaker labor markets, sticky inflation, and equity valuations that seem stretched, and markets could be in for a rocky period.

Wouldn’t it be a blessing to have CFM in place that not only provides the necessary liquidity so that assets aren’t forced to be sold at less than opportune times, but a strategy (service) that provides certainty since your obligations (liability cash flows) are matched with asset cash flows of bond principal and interest income for as far out as the bond and cash allocation will provide. It isn’t often that we are presented with an investment strategy that is truly a sleep-well-at-night offering for the long term. 

As a reminder, humans hate uncertainty, as it impacts us in both psychological and physiological ways. Yet, in the management of pensions and E&Fs, sponsors have wholeheartedly embraced uncertainty. The disconnect is quite surprising. Again, I don’t know what will transpire in markets today, tomorrow, or next year. I don’t know how the Iran situation will impact shipping lanes and the price of oil and inflation or worse, destabilize the entire region by bringing into the conflict Iran’s friends, such as Russia and China. I’m not a gambler and I don’t believe that managers of pension assets should be either.

I think it is critically important to SECURE the promises given to your plan’s participants and to achieve that objective with low cost and prudent risk. Riding the asset allocation rollercoaster accomplishes neither objective. Now’s the time to act. Not after markets have been rocked.

03.02.26
by

ARPA Update as of February 27, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Welcome to March and all the “madness” that comes with it!

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s implementation of this critical pension legislation, last week proved to be fairly quiet, and I imagine it will continue to be so, as the PBGC works through the remaining applications currently under review (14) and those that will likely be resubmitted (25). Quiet, unless some action is taken on the 80 plans sitting on the waitlist that were terminated by mass withdrawal prior to 2020.

During the past week there were no applications approved or denied, no pension plans were asked to repay a portion of their SFA and no pension funds asked to be added to the waitlist.

In other news, there was one revised application filed. Bricklayers Local No. 55 Pension Plan, a non-priority group member, is seeking $6.4 million for its 483 members. The PBGC has 120-days to review and approve the application before it is automatically accepted. The only other news of note related to two pension funds that withdrew applications. Non-priority group member, Retail Bakers’ Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis, withdrew its initial application. They’d been seeking $5.7 million for 566 plan members. Warehouse Employees Union Local 169 and Employers Joint Pension Plan, another non-priority group member, withdrew an already revised application in which they were hoping to secure $77.8 million for 3,609 plan participants.

The uncertainty related to action in Iran has U.S. Treasury yields rising across the Treasury yield curve as inflation concerns once again come into focus. Rising rates are challenging for bond investors unless a cash flow matching (CFM) strategy has been used. As a reminder, CFM will secure the promised benefits (and expenses, if desired) for as long as the SFA allocation lasts. As a reminder, those B&E are future values which are not interest rate sensitive. Importantly, higher interest rates will create more cost savings related to those future promises for pension plans still waiting to receive their SFA.

02.25.26
by

New Jersey’s Pension System’s “High” Investment Return

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

As a taxpaying resident in New Jersey and a huge supporter of defined benefit plans who has a daughter in the system, I was happy to read that NJ’s pension systems generated strong investment returns in fiscal year 2025, reporting a nearly 11% return. Terrific. Yet, despite the above target return (7.0% ROA), the impact on the system’s funded status was negative. Yes, the funded ratio improved (assets/liabilities), but the funded status further deteriorated (funding gap in $s). Since the system is striving for 7% and the combined funded ratio of the various plans is <50%, a system like NJ’s would need to double the annual return on asset target just to keep the $ deficit stable.

It is great to see that NJ is finally bringing some financial discipline to the management of its pensions, with contributions at least matching the Actuarial Determined Contribution (ADC), but after decades of failing to do so (I think since Washington slept here), the systems are in need of significant funding improvement. Trying to generate outsized gains through a riskier asset allocation is not a long-term winning formula, often leading to greater annually required contributions when markets behave badly and assets get whacked.

The management of DB pension plans is not rocket science if the basics of sound pension management are followed. For instance, plans receiving the full ADC have on average an 80% funded ratio, while those not receiving the full ADC sit with funded ratios <70% (NCPERS study). Plans sitting with funded ratios below 50% are not likely to create enough excess return relative to the annual ROA to be able to close the funding gap. This often leads to plans making difficult decisions such as creating plans with multiple tiers, which I really despise.

Plans should focus on meeting the ADC, securing the promised benefits in the near-term, which buys time for the growth or alpha assets to perform, and reduce costs of administration, including management fees. DB plans are critical to the creation of a dignified retirement. Having a significant percentage of our seniors lacking the financial wherewithal to remain active in our economy is a major problem with long-term implications.

02.10.26
by

Milliman: Corporate Pension Funding Soars

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Milliman has once again released its monthly Milliman 100 Pension Funding Index (PFI), which analyzes the 100 largest U.S. corporate pension plans, and the news continues to be quite good.

Market appreciation of 1.05% during January lifted the market value of PFI plan assets by $8 billion increasing total AUM to $1.327 trillion. A slight 1 bp rise in the discount rate to 5.47% lowered plan liabilities marginally to $1.217 trillion at the end of January. As a result, the PFI funded ratio climbed from 108.2% at the beginning of the year to 109.0% as of January 31, 2026. 

“January’s strong returns contributed $8 billion to the PFI plans’ funding surplus, while declining liabilities contributed another $2 billion,” said Zorast Wadia, author of the Milliman 100 PFI. “Although funded ratios have now improved for 10 straight months, managing this surplus will continue to be a central theme for many plan sponsors as they employ asset-liability matching strategies going forward.” We couldn’t agree more, Zorast! Given significant uncertainty regarding the economy, inflation, interest rates, and geopolitical events, now is the time to modify plan asset allocations by reducing risk through a cash flow matching strategy (CFM).

CFM will secure the promised benefits, provide the necessary monthly liquidity, extend the investing horizon for the non-CFM assets, while stabilizing the funded status and contribution expenses. Corporate plan sponsors have worked diligently tom improve funding and markets have cooperated in this effort. Now is not the time to “let it ride”. Ryan ALM will provide a free analysis to any plan sponsor that would like to see how CFM can help them accomplish all that I mentioned above. Don’t be shy!

Click on the link below for a look at Milliman’s January funding report.

View this month’s complete Pension Funding Index.

For more on Ryan ALM, Inc.

02.10.26
by

ARPA Update as of February 6, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

It looks like those of us in the Northeast will finally get some respite from the bitter cold, as temps will moderate this week and actually hit the 30s. However, those multiemployer pension plans currently sitting on the waitlist and classified as a Plan Terminated by Mass Withdrawal before 2020 Plan Year, continue to be frozen in place. According to the PBGC’s latest update, there are 80 plans that fall under the Mass Withdrawal classification. I’ll share more info on this subject later in this post.

Regarding last week’s activity, the PBGC is reporting that one fund, Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Local No. 109 Pension Plan, a Troy, MI, construction union, will receive $13.7 million for the 1,439 plan members. In addition to the one approval, there was another fund that withdrew its initial application. Norfolk, VA-based International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 79 Pension Fund was seeking $14.6 million in SFA for 462 participants in the plan.

There were no applications submitted for review. It appears that only one non-mass withdrawal plan, Plasterers Local 79 Pension Plan, remains on the waitlist. Fortunately, there were no plans asked to rebate a portion of the SFA grant due to census errors or any funds deemed no eligible.

Regarding the 80 mass withdrawal funds currently sitting on the waitlist, MEPs terminated by mass withdrawal under ERISA §4041A(a)(2) are explicitly ineligible for SFA under ARP/IRA rules, regardless of application timing. Furthermore:

No “initial application” option exists post-termination date.

Mass withdrawal means that all/substantially all employers completely withdraw leading to a plan termination.

PBGC SFA statute excludes §4041A(a)(2) terminated plans.

For the 80 funds sitting on the waitlist, it seems like a long shot that the APRA legislation will be amended to accommodate these funds seeking SFA. I’ll continue to monitor this situation in future posts.

02.02.26
by

ARPA Update as of January 30, 2026

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

So much for escaping the bitter cold in New Jersey by flying to Orlando, FL. The reality is that Orlando is sitting at 25 degrees this morning (Sunday 2/1). Someone is playing a nasty trick on all those snowbirds. It is a good thing for me that I’ll be spending most of my time in a conference room until Wednesday (FPPTA). I hope that you have a great week.

Regarding ARPA and the PBGC’s continuing implementation of this critical legislation, there was activity last week, and some of it was surprising. As I’ve mentioned on several occasions, the ARPA legislation specifically states that all initial applications seeking special financial assistance (SFA) needed to be submitted to the PBGC by 12/31/25. Revised applications could be resubmitted after that date and until 12/31/26. That said, there were three initial applications filed with the PBGC during the week ending January 30th. What gives?

In other news, Cincinnati-based Asbestos Workers Local No. 8 Retirement Trust Plan received approval for SFA. They will get $40.1 million to support their 451 plan participants. In other news, Local 1814 Riggers Pension Plan, withdrew its initial application which had been filed through the PBGC’s e-Filing portal last October. They are hoping to secure a $2.5 million SFA grant for their 65 members.

Fortunately, there were no previous recipients of SFA asked to repay a portion of the grant due to census errors nor were any applications denied due to eligibility issues. Lastly, no new pension plans asked to be added to the waitlist which currently numbers more than 80 systems.

The U.S. Treasury yield curve remains steep, with 30-year bond yields exceeding the yield on the 2-year note by 1.34% as of Friday’s closing prices. This steepening provides plan sponsors and grant recipients with attractive yields on longer maturity cash flow matching programs used to secure the promised benefits.

01.30.26
by

“Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Jay Kloepfer

By: Russ Kamp, CEO, Ryan ALM, Inc.

Institutional Investor’s James Comtois has recently published an article that quoted several industry members on the near-term (10-years) return forecast for both public and private markets, which according to those asked are looking anemic. No one should be surprised by these forecasts given the incredible strength of public markets during the past three years and the fact that regression to the mean tendencies is not just theory.

An equally, if not greater, challenge is liquidity. As the title above highlights, Jay Kloepfer, Director of Capital Markets Research at Callan, told II that “Liquidity has become a bigger issue,” He went on to say that “Everybody’s looking under every rock.” Not surprising! Given the migration of assets from public markets to private during the last few decades. The rapid decline in U.S. interest rates certainly contributed to this asset movement, but expectations for “outsized” gains from alternatives also fueled enthusiasm and action. The Callan chart below highlights just how far pension plans have migrated.

I’ve written a lot on the subject of liquidity. Of course, the only reason that pension plans exist is to fund a promise that was made to the participants of that fund. Those promises are paid in monthly installments. Not having the necessary liquidity can create significant unintended consequences. No one wants to be a forced seller in a liquidity challenged market. It is critical that pension plans have a liquidity policy in place to deal with this critical issue. Equally important is to have an asset allocation that captures liquidity without having to sell investments.

Cash flow matching (CFM) is such a strategy. It ensures that the necessary liquidity is available each and every month through the careful matching of asset cash flows (interest and principal) with the liability cash flows of benefits and expenses. No forced selling! Furthermore, the use of CFM extends the investing horizon for those growth assets not needed in the CFM program. Those investments can just grow unencumbered. The extended investing horizon also allows the growth assets to wade through choppy markets without the possibility of being sold at less than opportune times.

So, if you are concerned about near-term returns for a variety of assets and with creating the necessary liquidity to meet ongoing pension promises, don’t rely on the status quo approach to asset allocation. Adopt a bifurcated asset allocation that separates plan assets into liquidity and growth buckets. Your plan will be in much better shape to deal with the inevitable market correction.